Handguns
Subscribe
Home› Conservation Front
harbison
Posts: 5,772 Admiral
Pew @ work!
harbison
Posts: 5,772 Admiral
:nono Pew is not only out to destroy fishing in the United States, but world wide. Pew, as well as EDF, must be stopped.
Direct from the Pew web sight:
"The Pew Environmental Group is on a mission to create 15 massive marine sanctuaries by 2020. And the group is nowhere close to done. Pew helped spearhead the campaign to establish the reserve, which includes an area the size of Spain closed off to all fishing. The nonprofit was also instrumental in establishing the other largest marine reserves in the world: two near the northwest Hawaiian Islands and the Marianas Trench in 2009, and another encompassing the Chagos Archipelago, a string of islands and coral atolls in the Indian Ocean, in 2010. All told, the amount of ocean set aside from extractive activities adds up to 868,000 square miles -- an area larger than Greenland. And the group is nowhere close to done" :devil
Direct from the Pew web sight:
"The Pew Environmental Group is on a mission to create 15 massive marine sanctuaries by 2020. And the group is nowhere close to done. Pew helped spearhead the campaign to establish the reserve, which includes an area the size of Spain closed off to all fishing. The nonprofit was also instrumental in establishing the other largest marine reserves in the world: two near the northwest Hawaiian Islands and the Marianas Trench in 2009, and another encompassing the Chagos Archipelago, a string of islands and coral atolls in the Indian Ocean, in 2010. All told, the amount of ocean set aside from extractive activities adds up to 868,000 square miles -- an area larger than Greenland. And the group is nowhere close to done" :devil
Replies
And it is simply ridiculous to suggest that PEW/EDF's goal is to either end fishing or make the world 100% MPAs. Shame on you for having to lie to make your point, Bob.
Refer to what California anglers are saying about the MLPAs implemented over there before sticking your foot in your mouth any more.
FV Miss Mary, I'm sorry to burst your bubble but I didn't vote for Obama. Please don't pretend to know what I think, who I support, or who my "fellow traveler" are. I'm a lot of things, but shy is not one of them -- if you have a question, please ask rather than assume. Thanks.
What's doing more damage to our fisheries?
This:
Or this:
To me, the answer is very clear. You are, of course, free to disagree....Mike
https://www.wonews.com/Blog.aspx?id=910
Some quotes;
thats horrible looks like its time to sell the boat!
sean manning
This is a frickin joke. I am not going to even try figure this out. I am 50 years old and have fished many of these areas my entire life in my own boat. That triangle off Laguna is a ridiculous. There is no way I could tell you if I was fishing in the closed area or no as the morthern most line seems to run due south and the southern line runs west. It's hard enough just to plot my way to various offshore weighpoints, and I am probably better at it than most guys. So now they have bounderies and areas with borders going in all different directions and i am suppose to know all these artificial lines as I negotiate up and down the coastline. It's not like they are marked off or show on my GPS. Who the hell came up with this great idea? It just ain't going to work, and if they try to enforce this on poeple by writing tickets there is going to be an all ourt revolt and fishermen who have long respected and supported the fish and game rules and department will instead revolt and be lined up against them.
Joe
Great job with all the work you and your paper have been doing. I will pass this to The Tuna Club.Thanks Mark Cernich
Mark Cernich
I have been following these since the beginning. At every meeting the CA.Fish and Game has said . We cannot enforce properly what we have now. There is no way to enforce this. The Tree People need to get a life. Hope the suit turns out in our favor or at the least hold it up in courts for years. Thank,Gary
Gary Nordyke
Could have been a lot worse. They wanted a lot more area closed. Mark
mark
screw the MLPA with the exception of a couple areas all they have done is reclose a couple areas i mostly fish north of laguna but how the hell are we supposed to tell where the bounderies are
clay
Thank you for providing us with this very good tool.
Nick Ekdahl
thats a shame,whats next?regulating the days we can purchase fishing gear,and putting serial numbers on our lures with a 10 day waiting period before you can take it home,how sad.
Mike Gomez
This is extremely informative. Thanks for putting in the effort. I realized that I had a misunderstanding about the San Diego Scripp's area north of the pier. I didn't realize that it was limited to palegic fish by hook and line. If I am doing catch and release fly fishing from the beach, do you think I can say I am fishing for bonito and mackerel? I can call out "Oops" real loudly when I catch a halibut or corbina.
Ron Groth
HERE'S ANOTHER;
Sacramento, CA – December 15, 2010 – Despite ongoing legal concerns, the California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) voted 3-2 to approve a wide-ranging array of marine protected areas (MPAs), essentially no-fishing zones, along the southern California coast. In its latest effort to implement the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), the commission’s vote indefinitely closes approximately 12 percent of southern California’s ocean to recreational fishing – including many of the state’s best recreational fishing areas.
“It’s beyond comprehension that the commission would go through with approving these regulations given the serious flaws in the process,” said Bob Fletcher of the Sportfishing Association of California and former Chief Deputy Director of the California Department of Fish and Game. “The commission obviously had no desire to assure that a fair, open, objective and legally conducted process was in place before such a vote occurred. This vote leaves little doubt that the MLPA has is based on political agendas instead of the needs of California’s citizens and natural resources.”
The Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO), which represents recreational fishing and boating interests in California, has been actively engaged in the MLPA process since the North Central Coast phase. The PSO has voiced its concerns regarding the numerous flaws and a lack of transparency in the process. One of the PSO’s members, United Anglers of Southern California (UASC), has retained legal representation to investigate the legality of the MLPA process.
During the December 15, commission meeting, the PSO’s attorneys presented to the commission the numerous examples of defects in the rulemaking process, including many flaws that were discovered after reviewing MLPA planning documents that have only recently become public.
On October 1, 2010, a California Superior Court ruled that two MLPA planning groups – the Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) and Master Plan Team , also known as the Science Advisory Team, are state agencies and therefore compelled by California’s Public Records Act to share information that they were withholding from public view. These groups would not respond to a Public Records Act request, incorrectly claiming they were not state agencies. In light of a PSO review of the documents provided to date, the commission was presented several notable findings prior to their vote, including evidence that the BRTF held numerous scheduled, agendized meetings which were closed to the public.
Other notable flaws and concerns with the MLPA process that were not taken into consideration by the commission include:
* Lack of funding for the necessary monitoring and enforcement of MPA regulations – a $40 million annual price tag.
* Negative economic impact of closures to saltwater recreational fishing, which contributes $2.3 billion to California’s economy annually and supports nearly 20,000 jobs.
* Major flaws in the environmental analysis of the impacts of the proposed South Coast regulations.
* Inconsistent and shifting guidelines throughout the process.
“The MLPA attempts to resolve a fisheries ‘crisis’ that simply does not exist. As a result of decades of successful traditional fisheries management, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, there is not one marine fish stock currently experiencing overfishing in California’s waters,” said Gordon Robertson, Vice President of the American Sportfishing Association, a PSO member. “Simply put: fisheries management in California is working and the MPAs are not necessary.”
“While we are deeply disturbed that the commission would go forward with approving these regulations, the process is not over yet,” noted John Riordan, Board Member of UASC. “The PSO legal effort is working to protect the interests of recreational anglers and is making significant progress. I urge all anglers and anyone concerned with the MLPA to visit www.oceanaccessprotectionfund.org and make a donation to help the fight against this flawed process in the courts.”
These are the numbers and are in thousands (so, 785k = 785,000)
I also looked at number of rockfish (their big fishery in CA)
Year #anglers #rockfish
2004 708k 352k
2005 902k 462k
2006 896k 601k
2007 768k 492k
2008 640k 453k
2009 676k 582k
2010 655k 481k
2011 621k 584k
There is fluctuations, though overall, given weather gas (especially there!) the variation in catch isn't that high between years. There is a noticible break after '07, but the numbers of anglers seem to stabilize. From the DFG site, it seems one MPA zone was implemented in 07, 10 and two in 2012.
interesting stuff and great way to blow off a day at work!
Question: Are those # of fish catch data or stock data?
Because if it is catch data, it sure looks like MPAs (or something else) is making the fishery better. I've taken your data and added the rightmost column:
Year Anglers Fish Fish/Angler
2004 708000 352000 0.50
2005 902000 462000 0.51
2006 896000 601000 0.67
2007 768000 492000 0.64
2008 640000 453000 0.71
2009 676000 582000 0.86
2010 655000 481000 0.73
2011 621000 584000 0.94
If it is catch data, it sure appears as if those MPAs (or other regulations) might actually be working (i.e. fish per angler goes from 0.51 in 2004 to 0.94 in 2011). If it is stock data, then it suggests we should consider doing even more to rebuild the stocks (i.e. a relatively flat population from 2004 to 2011 despite a drop in anglers/pressure).
Was that what you hoped to show?
I used to fish out there and I can tell you that most of the data collected in California are not really relevant to our fisheries.
To add to the confusion, many of the designated MPAs had little to do with biologically important spawning or rearing areas. Some people just didn't want to see sport fishermen interfering with the view from their homes.
One reality of MPAs is that many of the best fishing areas need to be included if the preserves are going to work.
Hey Tarponator, yes, this is the catch data for the entire state. Thanks for adjusting, I was in a hurry and didn't do a decent job. In CA, they break the state into districts. In the districts, there was some increased landing fluctuation, a general down turn in effort, between the year prior to an MPA going on line then stabilized afterward. (apparently they broke the state into 4 or 5 sections for the MPA). The Southern CA, where most of the fishermen are, didn't go online until 2012. That will be interesting to look at when the data is available to see if it is comparable to the other years
And Doc, I realize there isn't much in common with the fishery as it is CA. I grew up there (then got the hell out at 18!). What I am trying to show is to provide a quantitative data set showing what happens when MPAs occur. Many are saying how they will kill the fishery, so I investigated to see what happens when they are implemented. In the Gulf, MPAs at least for offshore species, would be nearly impossible to enforce. The CA MPAs are all attached to shore, no pelagic. The nearshore areas in the Gulf are all state waters, and doubtful they would implement MPAs.
From 2004-2007, pre MPA, fishing pressure increased to an average of 20.8% above the 2004 level and fish/angler increased by 28% at the end of the period.
From 2007-2011, post MPA, fishing pressure decreased to an average of 15.6% below the 2007 level and fish/angler increased by 47% at the end of the period which is 33% longer.
Just using this number set I see two things. First, in a period of significantly increased pressure we had improvement of fish/angler without MPAs. Why would closing large areas to fishing be needed when the fishery is in recovery despite increased pressure? Aren't the current regs in effect having a positive affect on the fishery? Second, when you factor in the decreased effort and longer time period I don't see a significant increase in the velocity of the recovery.
Two questions, if I may:
First, how do you define "fishing pressure"? I'm not sure I follow.
Second, your interpretation seems to draw a hard line in 2007, yet it is my understanding that only a few (one?) MPA started then and they have been phased in over time -- so is it fair to draw "pre-" and "post-MPA" conclusions? More broadly, and understanding the slow effect on fish stocks, is it safe to attribute anything to MPAs yet?
FWIW, the last line of questioning centers on why I used the words "or other regulations" and looked at the trends across the entire timeline in the response above -- I'm not sure it's as cut and dried as is suggested by your analysis.
Respectfully...Mike
This data shows 1) the entire state and 2) the section where the MPAs were enacted first. Using the whole state may mask the MPA effects.
Again I apologize. Computers....
But perhaps I'm just seeing what I want to see...
What do the rest of you think?
The ultimate goal of establishing the MPA is to ensure "recovery", what ever that means since a backwards projection needs to be made which literally cannot about the original population, and what a sustainable population should therefore be.
What those tables indicates to me is an increase of effort and decrease in catch; a declining CPUE. What this shows in terms of a CPUE as an indicator of relative abundance is that the MPAs failing to accomplish that goal.
Which is great if you don't want people to fish, because you now have data to support total closures.
"Well Gary, the easiest way to look tall is to stand in a room full of short people." - Curtis Bostick
"All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
Figuring out where people fished when pre/post MPAs would be interesting too, meaning, did MPAs spread effort out or concentrate it. IF it concentrated it, then I could see how this could have negative effects on the fishery. Which could 'substantiate' claims of overfishing or the like.
Mike -
I think you hit the nail on the head. I know that I have a predisposition against MPAs. I am always looking for evidence to support my prejudice. Quite frankly I see them as the lazy man's fisheries management tool.
To your questions, I was assuming that there were the same number of trips per angler for each year in the data set, which I know is not accurate but I was working with what I had. That is how I came up with pressure. Your second question is very valid and, especially knowing exactly nothing about rockfish, I don't know the answer. I don't think anyone knows how to accurately evaluate what can and cannot be attibuted to MPAs. There are simply too many variables that have to be considered.
You are right. I overlooked the important qualifier "or other regulations". I appologize for the oversight. And, nothing is cut and dried in fisheries management. I was trying to start a friendly conversation using a very limited data set and no additional knowledge of the fishery.
If the data set is accurate there clearly needs to be a review of the fishery and regulations. Something further has to be done to protect the fishery.
That said, I have a couple observations. First, the trend in the number of angler trips appears to be the opposite of what is happening in my area of the country. Given the economy I would expect to start seeing a significant decline in angler trips in 2008 and 2009. Once again, I don't know a thing about rockfish but if it requires a boat to fish for them those numbers don't make any sense. Also, why is there a 489% jump in angler trips from '04 to '05? This last item doesn't pass the smell test.
I have to say that the most upsetting thing that has happend to me personally is that I have lost all trust in "science" when it comes to fisheries management. It wasn't long ago that I took whatever they said as gospel. Then, when they started in on the red snapper in my area, a fish with which I have had extensive personal interaction in the range of 1000+ trips fishing and diving, the scientists were either blatanly lieing or showing an extreme lack of basic knowledge about the species. Since then the first thing I always do is try to pick apart their work. I wish I wasn't like that but I am.
Thanks for your response, FBW. I appreciate it.
I agree that they are kind of a lazy man's tool -- and as with any regulations the devil is in the details -- but having seen them (or something very close, as we have around McDill AFB) work first hand, I tend to believe in their efficacy in fisheries that get a lot of pressure. Admittedly, I'm also a bit more liberal when it comes to conservation issues in general.
No worries. I wouldn't know a rockfish if it bit my baitbuster either, although I think I remember seeing a bright orange one on TV once.
Take care...Mike
The first question I would ask after watching it is this; Why even contemplate MPAs when they are not making the effort to count the fish that are already out there? The result of not counting those fish is in effect an MPA in itself, as it (unnecessarily) prohibits fishermen from accessing the resource for ever-increasing portions of the year.
Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
I understand the issues with the totality of the MLPA system, but I think there are other networks of MPA's, with some areas closed off seasonally, some areas open to specific sectors, and relatively little area closed off completely to all fishing and diving, as being quite successful. I also urge everyone to look at things cumulatively, including management techniques. When MPAs are combined with efforts to manage land-based sources of pollution and maritime industry and coastal construction impacts, they are doing a fine job of true "ecosystem-based management". Look at many island nations around the Caribbean and Pacific for examples of this. However, here in the U.S., it's so hard to take this approach because of our coastal sprawl and the number of users, that sometimes management efforts get a little cloudy.
There's a lot of issues at play, but in the end I think most managers and scientists are honestly looking for the best possible management practices to help, not hurt, user groups who enjoy these resources.
History shows otherwise - the managers have taken AWAY access continually over the last several years.
That is counter to supposedly helping user groups enjoy the resources.
"Coastal sprawl" is an opinion.
Science has no agenda and even less of a social planning mandate. Science simply tells a non-fiction story. What is done with that story is politics.
"Well Gary, the easiest way to look tall is to stand in a room full of short people." - Curtis Bostick
"All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
In an MPA can you catch but not keep fish, not catch fish, or do you have to stay out completely?
Earlier this year, as I recall, an attempt was made to close off parts of Biscayne Bay and the Outer Banks, was this an MPA or something else?
I think I remember that there was an effort to close off the Marquesas Keys, is my memory correct and was this an MPA?
Are MPA’s forever or a temporary thing? If not permanent, are the goals for reopening clearly stated?
"Well Gary, the easiest way to look tall is to stand in a room full of short people." - Curtis Bostick
"All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse